[linux-elitists] Editor weight (was: Opera beta)

Heather star@starshine.org
Fri Oct 6 20:28:33 PDT 2000


> > > parenthesis. And 8 MBytes continuously swapping (256 MBytes
> > > continuously swapping, in my case. When Netscape and XEmacs are
> > > fighting for the core sometimes even the GUI loses; my window dock has
> > > crashed a week ago. Now here's a feature of KDE I'm not missing one
> > > bit).

I've found that it's far more often that Netscape loses than the GUI - but
me, I still run fvwm2 so what do I know about GUI weight.

(*user* session count right now: 3 vc consoles; 1 session of X containing -
	 3 xterms and xconsole, Netscape at desk 2, Gimp at desk 3;  no
	screen sessions live at the moment;  doesn't look like any of my
	authorized outsiders are in right now.)

The question you really should be asking me is, why are 3 text sessions inside
X, and 3 out, shouldn't that be 6 in screen or 6 vc's?  The answer is, this
is my standard "about to edit a website" X setup, the 3 vc's aren't at related
to it, and I don't use screen at all except when I'm inbound on a teeny pipe,
unlike Jim who quite the reverse, uses it for everything.

> > Interesting. I've never had that happen with my editor of choice (Nedit),
> > which is not exactly lightweight.
> 
> Wrong. Nedit is one of the lightest, smallest, fastest editors that it
> is resonable to program in on an X-Windows based system. I would say
> that vim is much more of a heavyweight than Nedit. If you want to get
> something lighter than Nedit, you'll probably have to look at
> something with either no X support (which has quite an unfair
> advantage) or something with an unbearable lack of useful features
> such as indentation and syntax highlighting.

Nedit is indeed a comfy editor.  But, mostly what I use is a copy of vim 
with no X support nor script-language, just syntax highlights and multiple
file edit is enough for me.

Note that I've nothing against Nedit, it's more a font comfort thing, and I 
have a very enjoyable font set on my true console.  SuSE's good for that 
and it uses hardly *any* memory that wouldn't have been used for a crappier
font instead ;D
 
> > But I'd say that C is a *fuck* of a lot better language for almost
> > everything than Lisp. Try debugging a large Lisp project. When you've done
> > one on the scale of the average commercial software project, then I think
> > you'll have earned the right to tell programmers what tools they maybe
> > should or shouldn't use. We still won't listen, mind you.
> 
> I lost you. Lisp has been superior to C in all of my experience. Lisp
> is easy to debug becuase it's interpreted, can usually be run
> interactively, and has a simple syntax that doesn't confuse people.
> Best of all, it doesn't crash but instead displays reasonable error
> messages. Have you ever programmed in a Lisp dialect? From your list
> below, it doesn't look like it.
 
I have a great elitist time at conferences where the boothies are trying to
sell me the latest-greatest IDE+project environment on steroids... because
they all suck for taking on someone else's code, or your own after you let
it get moribund for a few months and then decided, maybe it had better be
in a project environment.

> I remember JWZ quoting someone who said that "Any large C++ project
> will reimplement all of the features avaiable in the Common Lisp
> libraries." Just look at Mozilla!
> 
> > Maybe you really need to learn what it's like to be a programmer. I've
> > done it for a living for a quarter century now. The primary languages I've
> > used, in order: Basic, Pascal, Forth, C, C++, Python, PHP.
> 
> All of the above suck except for Forth. C has a few redeeming
> qualities too.

So we need a Canonical List of Languages That Suck to go with that website
that has the Canonical List of OS' That Suck. 

> I've been impressed by PostScript, Scheme, Emacs Lisp, and Assembler.
> I want to learn ML.

One of these days I want to actually learn Postscript straight-up, but I
seem to be soaking my way into LaTeX sooner.  

Mind you, layout on a page doesn't really strike me as belonging in the
same discussion as a C++ vs Lisp battle, but whatever.

Assembler for which chipset?  I've played with 8x86 (though not nearly deeply
enough to be cool) and IBM 370 (gotta wonder, do you really want to ask?) 
and have to confess I found the latter easier.  No idea why and they're both
so long past that they are equally fuzzy to me now.

I like the bricks and mortar approach - use your favorite Brick (high level
language, big plans, yadda yada) and fill in missing parts with your 
favorite mortar (often a shell script wrapper to lace parts together, Tcl,
or assembler, depending on the kind of "glue together" that applies). Mind
you without a decent Foundation of a design plan, the house is gonna fall
no matter what you build it with.
 
* Heather * VI. As speed increases, objects can be in several places at once.
		-- Esquire, "O'Donnell's Laws of Cartoon Motion", June 1980




More information about the linux-elitists mailing list